sculpt_deactivate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the core action without disclosing side effects, reversibility, prerequisites, or error conditions. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but it is minimally informative.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, compact sentence with no extraneous wording. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it highly scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose. However, with no annotations and no mention of behavior when sculpting is inactive, output expectations, or relation to other sculpt commands, it is not fully complete. The output schema existence is noted but its content is unknown.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'obj' is fully described in the input schema ('Object to stop sculpting'), so the description need not add more. The description itself does not mention parameters, but schema coverage is complete, earning the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Deactivates') and resource ('sculpting mode for an object'), which distinguishes it from siblings like sculpt_activate and sculpt_iterate. It is specific and unambiguous about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, its context, or alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, typical workflows, or relationships to sculpt_activate/sculpt_iterate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.